SI.com: Romo shoots down doubters with attack on passing efficiency records

[BAT]

Passer rating rewards more yards per pass. That can come via shorter passes, intermediate passes, or longer passes. It's not biased toward anything, though simply chunking long balls all day long probably isn't advisable to obtain the highest QB rating. Then again, it's not advisable to obtain the highest winning percentage either.

It's calculated by running a correlation study between the statistics.

Its an antiquated, confusing and FLAWED system. I know you like to think you are the be all and end all on this forum, but .... even the ones in the know, players, coaches, GMs & the football media, don't like, don't care or don't even understand the system:

Dr. Z: “…it’s a prehistoric monster that no one understands, an illogical piece of antiquity that influences so much of the game when it shouldn’t. It affects what is written, what is discussed, what becomes the basis, in some cases, of salary structure and bonuses for players and coordinators.

Steve Young, who has the highest career passer rating in history, admits that he’s “not quite sure how the system works.”

Charley Casserly, who as Commanders general manager was quite aware that some clauses were built into contracts that reflected the rating points, says, “No, I couldn’t tell you exactly how they determine the ratings.”

Bill Parcells, whose 11-point dictum to quarterbacks came from years of study of the position, says, “I don’t know how they arrive at their ratings and I don’t care. I don’t pay any attention to them. I have my own system for evaluating quarterbacks.”

Read full article here or here. Here are MORE who do not agree with Theogt.

Oh, and your gobblely-**** about QBPR correlating w/winning, I call BS again. From one of the above articles:

Quarterbacks also play with their feet, and none of that is included. The NFL’s measure ignores sacks, yards lost from sacks, rushing attempts, yards gained from rushing, and fumbles. To see why this might matter, consider Jeff Garcia’s game this past week.

On Sunday Garcia completed 37 of 45 passes for 316 yards without throwing an interception. His quarterback rating for the week was 110.7, the third highest mark posted by a signal caller in Week Seven.

But his team lost.

I don't think giving up a touchdown early in the game allows anyone to blame a loss on the defense -- otherwise most losses would be blamed on the defense. In that playoff game the defense held the Giants to multiple 3 and outs late in the game to give the offense the ball and the opportunity to take the lead.

It was not early in the game. It was right before the half. Rightly or wrongly it greatly influenced the playcalling thereafter. It was a hole that did not have to be dug. The D has a tendency to brainfart at least ONCE in every big game.

 

[theogt]

Its an antiquated, confusing and BIASED system. I know you like to think you are the be all and end all on this forum, but .... even the ones in the know, players, coaches, GMs & the football media, don't like, don't care or don't even understand the system:

Dr. Z: “…it’s a prehistoric monster that no one understands, an illogical piece of antiquity that influences so much of the game when it shouldn’t. It affects what is written, what is discussed, what becomes the basis, in some cases, of salary structure and bonuses for players and coordinators.

Steve Young, who has the highest career passer rating in history, admits that he’s “not quite sure how the system works.”

Charley Casserly, who as Commanders general manager was quite aware that some clauses were built into contracts that reflected the rating points, says, “No, I couldn’t tell you exactly how they determine the ratings.”

Bill Parcells, whose 11-point dictum to quarterbacks came from years of study of the position, says, “I don’t know how they arrive at their ratings and I don’t care. I don’t pay any attention to them. I have my own system for evaluating quarterbacks.”

Read full article here or here. Here are MORE who do not agree with Theogt.

Oh, and your gobblely-**** about QBPR correlating w/winning, I call BS again. From one of the above articles:

It may be confusing to some, but that doesn't make it any less relevant of a statistic. The bottom line is it has the highest correlation to winning percentage of any stat outside of number of rushing attempts. If people want to discard such a highly telling stat, so be it, but obviously it's not for lack of relevance. And I'll assume the "antiquated" language was just a throw away comment since it's one of the newest statistics in the NFL, even if it was created several decades ago.

No idea why you're taking such a personal offense to a discussion about statistics. Perhaps you should just take a breather and calm down.

It was not early in the game. It was right before the half. Rightly or wrongly it greatly influenced the playcalling thereafter. It was a hole that did not have to be dug. The D has a tendency to brainfart at least ONCE in every big game.

The first half is not early in the game? If that's the case, I retract my statement, though it seems silly to me to think so.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I hope, sincerly hope that fans take some time to appreciate how great Tony Romo actually is.

 

[BAT]

It may be confusing to some, but that doesn't make it any less relevant of a statistic. The bottom line is it has the highest correlation to winning percentage of any stat outside of number of rushing attempts. If people want to discard such a highly telling stat, so be it, but obviously it's not for lack of relevance. And I'll assume the "antiquated" language was just a throw away comment since it's one of the newest statistics in the NFL, even if it was created several decades ago.

No idea why you're taking such a personal offense to a discussion about statistics. Perhaps you should just take a breather and calm down.

The first half is not early in the game? If that's the case, I retract my statement, though it seems silly to me to think so.

Its a flawed system. And it is not confusing to SOME, it is confusing to nearly ALL the people who are affected by the calculation: coaches, players AND general managers. Some of the "best" in the history of the NFL have discounted, diminished or outright dismissed the passer rating as an accurate tool to measure QB performance.

 

[Zman5]

He didn't play "bad" against the Seahawks or the the Giants in the playoffs. He didn't play "great" but he didn't play bad.

 

[bigE79]

I really wish people would stop saying Romo played bad in the 2007 playoff game against the Giants. IT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!!!!!! I dare anyone to go back and watch that game and tell me Romo played a bad game. If anyone can watch that game and STILL say Romo played bad, they have ZERO football IQ. ZERO!!!!!!!

...So true:starspin

 

[HanD]

Its a flawed system. And it is not confusing to SOME, it is confusing to nearly ALL the people who are affected by the calculation: coaches, players AND general managers. Some of the "best" in the history of the NFL have discounted, diminished or outright dismissed the passer rating as an accurate tool to measure QB performance.

when was this survey conducted and did it include past players as well as present players, coaches and GMs?

 

[casmith07]

it's only a matter of time before everything begins to fall into place for Romo and the Cowboys, and domination begins to happen.

 

[28 Joker]

Tony Romo is an elite player.

He's a top 5 QB, easy.

Without him, the Cowboys have no shot.

There is a reason I want more LTs to compete with Free, and I want Proctor gone.

#9

 

[BAT]

when was this survey conducted and did it include past players as well as present players, coaches and GMs?

Click on the links I posted. Some of the people who commented: Bill Parcells, Charlie Casserly, Steve Young, Ira Miller, Dr. Z .....

 

[htownboyzfan]

This pertains to the VICTORIES section in the original article. Since we have a regular season night game as the next game, I think it is very interesting that Romo is 12-2 as a starter in night games (the losses were both at home, to NO in '06 and to Baltimore in '08). If you add in the Thanksgiving games in '06, '07, '08 and the Christmas Day game in '06 against Philly (loss), he is 15-3. Even more impressive is he is 8-0 on the road.

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Romo undoubtedly is a hellava QB, however he needs to win big in the playoffs to become one of the all time greats. I'm praying he wins at least ONE Superbowl to silence all the real die-hard critics.....

 

[theogt]

Its a flawed system. And it is not confusing to SOME, it is confusing to nearly ALL the people who are affected by the calculation: coaches, players AND general managers. Some of the "best" in the history of the NFL have discounted, diminished or outright dismissed the passer rating as an accurate tool to measure QB performance.

And, yet, it's the stat that is the most predictive of wins. Surely that's simple enough for nearly ALL people who are affected to understand.

I'm sure most are confused because they haven't actually sat down and had someone explain it to them. It's really a very simple equation.

Regardless, I'm certainly not understanding why you're taking this so personally.

 

[Nav22]

But... but... but... according to SportingNews, he's not a top 100 player. Michael Vick is, though.

Romo = most absurdly underrated star player in the NFL today. Hands down.

 

[wileedog]

yea get back to me when he's got 3 or 4 SB rings


But it will take nothing less than a Super Bowl victory or two to truly earn the right to be mentioned among these all-time greats

I hate this crap.

Dan Marino was a great QB. One of the best who ever played and everything you would ever want at the position.

He has as many rings as Romo.

Why are great QBs discounted because they have played on teams that couldn't win it all? Especially when many teams have won SBs with mediocre at best QBs?

 

[BAT]

And, yet, it's the stat that is the most predictive of wins. Surely that's simple enough for nearly ALL people who are affected to understand.

I'm sure most are confused because they haven't actually sat down and had someone explain it to them. It's really a very simple equation.

Regardless, I'm certainly not understanding why you're taking this so personally.

That is just not the case. How is it most predictive when the passer rating system ranks Steve Young as the best all time? Is Young the most winningest, or the subjective "best", QB? Of course not.

How accurate is this system if Daunte Culpepper, Carson Palmer, Chad Pennington and Trent Green rank above undisputed QB greats like Marino, Favre, Staubach, Kelly, Aikman, Bradshaw or Starr?

When a Jake Delhomme is 40 plus slots above legends like Unitas, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Luckman, Stabler and Otto Graham, the system is patently flawed.

 

[NextGenBoys]

I think the myth of Romo not playing well in our playoff loses is complete BS.

I think he played very well in both, except for a monumental mistake in Seattle, and then the Intentional grounding (wrong call) and the sack against NY.

 

[trickblue]

You can love or hate Romo, but the fact is that he has put up incredibly gawdy numbers in his tenure here...

He is what he is, and that is a top 5 QB in this league...

Take it for what you will... but we are fortunate to have him...

 

[NextGenBoys]

You can love or hate Romo, but the fact is that he has put up incredibly gawdy numbers in his tenure here...

He is what he is, and that is a top 5 QB in this league...

Take it for what you will... but we are fortunate to have him...

IMO, top 3.

The only two I'd take over him are named Brady and Manning.

 

[theogt]

That is just not the case. How is it most predictive when the passer rating system ranks Steve Young as the best all time? Is Young the most winningest, or the subjective "best", QB? Of course not.

You're having trouble understanding what "most predictive" means. It doesn't mean that it's a perfect. It means that it's the closest to perfect of all official stats (besides total rushing plays).

Do you actually want me to give you an explain of what correlation coefficients are? I can post the study that I did to prove that QB rating has the highest correlation with winning percentage. It's in the archives here somewhere.

How accurate is this system if Daunte Culpepper, Carson Palmer, Chad Pennington and Trent Green rank above undisputed QB greats like Marino, Favre, Staubach, Kelly, Aikman, Bradshaw or Starr?

When a Jake Delhomme is 40 plus slots above legends like Unitas, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Luckman, Stabler and Otto Graham, the system is patently flawed.

The stat is flawed, but it isn't flawed due to today's QBs having better QB ratings. That phenomenon is a result of the fact that the game is very different today. Players are different. Rules are different. Playcalling is different. Schemes are different. It's just a different game with different people playing.

Regardless, every system is flawed unless it's perfect. QB rating isn't perfect. But like I said, it's the most predictive official stat there is, so if you're going to dismiss it, you have to dismiss all stats. And that's just silly.